Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.35 seconds)H.P.Public Service Commission vs Mukesh Thakur & Anr on 25 May, 2010
48. It appears to us that the decision of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1504 of 2018 dt.19-07-2019
57/76
Supreme Court, in the case of Mukesh Thakur
(supra), was not brought to the notice of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Kumod Kumar (supra).
Brajesh Kumar Bharadwaj & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 13 April, 2018
In this regard, the
judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this
Court dated 22.12.2017 passed in CWJC No. 16359
Patna High Court CWJC No.1504 of 2018 dt.19-07-2019
75/76
of 2017 (Brajesh Kumar & Ors. vs. The State
of Bihar & Ors.), as also the judgment rendered
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.V.
Natrajan & Ors. (supra) fully covers the said
issue, hence, the candidature of the writ
petitioners who have used whitener, eraser, pin
etc. have rightly been invalidated by the
Respondent-Board since they have violated the
instructions given to them which in turn amounts
to misconduct, hence such candidates are liable
not to be selected.
Abdul Majid & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 6 May, 2015
2. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment
and order of learned Single Judge, dated
6.5.2015, in CWJC No. 2650 of 2015* (Abdul
Majid and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others)
and other analogous matters, which arose out of
publication of results by the Bihar School
Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as
the "Board") of Bihar Primary Urdu and
Bangla (Special) Teachers Eligibility Test
(hereinafter referred to as the "Test"), whereby
learned Single Judge has directed the Board to
make evaluation of answer sheets of candidates,
who had participated in the Test, by deleting
questions wrongly framed and declare result
accordingly as against the decision of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1504 of 2018 dt.19-07-2019
45/76
Board, based on experts' suggestions, to award
one mark for each incorrect question.
A. Umarani vs Registrar, Cooperative Societies And ... on 28 July, 2004
In view of the aforesaid findings of this
Court as also the law laid down by the Apex
Court in the case of LIC vs. Asha
Ramchhandra Ambekar reported in
(1994)2SCC 718, in the case of A. Umarani
vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies & Ors.
reported in (2004)7 SCC 112 and in the case
of Himachal Pradesh Public Service
Commission vs. Mukesh Thakur & Anr.
reported in (2010)6 SCC 759 [ : 2010(3)
PLJR (SC)127], it must be held that this
Court cannot take on the role of examiners
or evaluators or that of the Selection Board
to examine discrepancy either in the
question paper or the answer sheet so as to
assume the role of examiners paper setter
and evaluator which is to be left to the
expert body. It is with reason and purpose
that courts have to assume the answer given
in the key answer to be correct and any
interference in a very light manner would
tend this Court to take the role of the paper
setter which would be clearly beyond the
purview of judicial review. As is well
understood and well settled, the power of
judicial review generally speaking is not to
be extended against the decision but is
directed only against the decision making
process.
Rajesh Kumar & Ors. Etc vs State Of Bihar & Ors. Etc on 13 March, 2013
7. Aggrieved by the order of the Single
Judge, the appellants filed LPA No. 70 of
2008 before the Division Bench of that
High Court. By the order impugned1 in
these appeals, the High Court has partly
allowed the appeal holding that model
answers in respect of 45 questions out of
100 were wrong. The Division Bench
modified the order passed by the learned
Single Judge and declared that the entire
examination need not be cancelled as there
was no allegation of any corrupt motive or
malpractice in regard to the other question
papers. A fresh examination in Civil
Engineering Paper only was, according to
the Division Bench, sufficient to rectify the
defect and prevent injustice to any
candidate. The Division Bench further held
that while those appointed on the basis of
Patna High Court CWJC No.1504 of 2018 dt.19-07-2019
29/76
the impugned selection shall be allowed to
continue until publication of the fresh
result, anyone of them who failed to make
the grade on the basis of the fresh
examination shall be given a chance to
appear in another examination to be
conducted by the Staff Selection
Commission. The present appeals assail
the correctness of the said judgment and
order of the High Court as already noticed
earlier.
Manoj Kumar Chaudhary & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 13 April, 2018
19. Some of the counsels of the petitioners,
therefore, urge that the best option would
be to delete the number of wrong questions
irrespective of the recommendation of the
committees as to award of marks and
evaluate the answers on the left over
correct questions. There shall not be any
chaos and confusion because the
evaluation will be done on true merits of
reduced number of questions. That will be
a uniform yardstick of testing the merit of
all the candidates who participated in the
examination and it will not create any bias
in favour of the candidates sitting at the top
who will end up with more weightage or
marks than they would have earned in TET
examination. Reliance was placed by the
counsel for some of the petitioners in a
case reported in 2012 (1) PLJR 542, which
is the case of Manoj Kumar Vs. State of
Bihar. It is the matter related to similar
kind of wrong questions in an examination
conducted by Bihar Public Service
Commission for 52ndto 55thbatch.
Secretary Tamilnadu Public Service ... vs A.B.Natarajan & Ors.Etc on 21 January, 2015
In this regard, the
judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this
Court dated 22.12.2017 passed in CWJC No. 16359
Patna High Court CWJC No.1504 of 2018 dt.19-07-2019
75/76
of 2017 (Brajesh Kumar & Ors. vs. The State
of Bihar & Ors.), as also the judgment rendered
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.V.
Natrajan & Ors. (supra) fully covers the said
issue, hence, the candidature of the writ
petitioners who have used whitener, eraser, pin
etc. have rightly been invalidated by the
Respondent-Board since they have violated the
instructions given to them which in turn amounts
to misconduct, hence such candidates are liable
not to be selected.
Ravindra Kumar Singh vs The High Court Of Judicature At Patna & ... on 8 January, 2016
28. Admittedly, the respondent-Board, upon
preparation of the model answers by a team of
subject experts, after the examination had been
held, found that 28 questions were wrong as far as
sets A, B, C and D of paper I and Paper II are
Patna High Court CWJC No.1504 of 2018 dt.19-07-2019
70/76
concerned whereafter, all such wrong questions
were deleted and the answer-sheets were
evaluated and then the result was published on
22.9.2017 by lowering down the full marks
corresponding to the wrong questions,
corresponding to the concerned paper. This Court
further finds that the process at the level of the
respondent-Board did not end here inasmuch as
after publication of the result of the BETET, 2017
on 22.9.2017, further complaints were received
with regard to the error in questions whereupon
the Respondent-Board had again appointed a
committee of subject experts to deal with the fresh
objections received by the respondent-Board from
the appearing candidates and thereafter, the
committee, after examining the objections, had
submitted its recommendations to the Board along
with the revised model answer key, which was
uploaded on the website of the Board, inviting
fresh objections thereon, vide fresh communiqué
contained in advertisement no. 95 of 2017 dated
28.12.2017, from all the appearing candidates with
Patna High Court CWJC No.1504 of 2018 dt.19-07-2019
71/76
request to the candidates to file their objections
against the revised model answer key and then the
fresh objections received from the appearing
candidates were forwarded to the subject experts
committee which again looked into the objections
and gave its recommendations and only thereafter,
considering the report of the subject experts, the
final result of BETET, 2017 was published on
6.3.2018. One important aspect to be noted here is
that the writ petitioners have failed to show that in
pursuance to advertisement no. 95 of 2017, issued
on 28.12.2017, the writ petitioners had filed fresh
objections against the revised model answer key,
hence, on this ground alone, the writ petitions are
fit to be dismissed inasmuch as non-submission of
such objections clearly depict that the writ
petitioners had no grievances against the revised
model answer key. In fact, the rejoinder affidavit
filed by the writ petitioners in the first case also do
not show any substantial grievances and on the
contrary, it has been stated that some of the writ
petitioners have already stood successful after
Patna High Court CWJC No.1504 of 2018 dt.19-07-2019
72/76
fresh exercise was undertaken by the Respondent
Board, upon considering the objections of the
appearing candidates regarding their grievances to
the questions-answers. This Court, thus, finds that
the Board has taken full care to delete the
defective questions, which is in line with the
mandate of law, as enunciated in the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Kanpur University (supra), as also by this Court
in the case of Dhananjay Kumar Mishra and
Ors. (supra) and Ravindra Kumar Singh & Ors.
(supra), hence this Court does not find any
infirmity in the process undertaken by the
respondent Board to publish the final result dated
6.3.2018.
The Secretary, West Bengal Council Of ... vs Ayan Das & Ors on 28 September, 2007
The relevant observations, made
in the case of Ayan Das (supra), read as
under:--